US ambassador killed over a film

[kandrathe]

I'm a social libertarian. If I can't point to specific and compelling harms to others caused by certain behaviours, then I don't see what makes them immoral or unethical.

Well, me too. Maybe I'm just old and have been hammered into the mold. There are parts of our social contract I don't generally agree with, or wish were worded better, however I've subscribed to live in this society and don't see any better alternative. Therefore, I've signed onto the existing social contract. I'm in favor of amending it where possible to extend those freedoms that harm no one else, but it gets thorny. I see no need, and big risks if we were to trash it and start over.

First, a story. I used to lease a place with my college friends. We were responsible, and mostly a studious group. We'd have the occasional low key party, and inform our neighbors in advance (give them our phone number to call us if there was a problem) to head off a noise complaint and an unexpected visit from the police. But, there was another group of people who were a pariah to the other tenants. Frequently, after the police broke up their party, and dispersed the more irresponsible revelers, all of us in the complex would have to clean up after them.

If we look at the ancient Mosaic rule about sex outside of marriage. This was ostensibly to ensure that children were reared in the context of family, since even with modern society it is very difficult to both tend to a baby (or babies), and earn a living wage. Contraceptives could change the necessity for the rule if people were responsible for ensuring that pregnancy was truly planned.

There obviously remains a societal problem and our society is divided in which path we should follow. Clearly, the libertarian approach would be in favor of people being in charge of their own contraception and thereby pregnancy. The conservative approach is to favor the original intent of the Mosaic rule (i.e. abstinence), and actually the conservative realists secondarily also promote certain types of contraception when abstinence ultimately fails (62% of HS seniors report they've done it).

However, where the libertarian argument ends is when the progressive movement feels it is necessary to step in to expend national resources to rescue individuals from the negative consequences of their own choices.

We could also extend this libertarian exercise to the use of recreational drugs. I believe, as I think you do, that the government should not criminalize recreational drug use if it does no other person harm. But, as with many behaviors (some sanctioned) there are risks of addiction. We condone the use of tobacco and alcohol, which are demonstrably addictive, yet we do not do so for similar psychoactive substances. Mostly, the society still allows individuals to suffer the consequences of their choices. Recent legal actions against tobacco companies seem specious, and hypocritical when considering how farming tobacco is subsidized.

Again, the libertarian argument ends when the progressive movement feels it is necessary to step in to expend national resources to rescue individuals from the negative consequences of their own choices.

In our social contract, it doesn't make any sense to extend liberty without conditions, and then penalize everyone (by taking away their earnings) for the bad decisions of those who do not take responsible actions. Like the irresponsible tenants from my story, we are taking care of the irresponsible and enabling their bad behavior. We get left with cleaning up the mess.

In terms of social programs, this why I'm more in favor of minimal and limited protections (short term safety nets), and in favor of voucher systems, rather than "free" smörgåsbord type services. Whatever can be governed locally, should be. Whatever can be privatized, should be.